Numerous articles and
documents have been written about the management of distance education.
The International Centre for Distance Learning (ICDL) Distance Education
Library and the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) alone contain
hundreds of such documents. Most of these documents, however, examine distance
education policy, institution management, student support systems and student
administration relevant to the first three generations of distance education
delivery models [correspondence, multimedia and telelearning]. Surprisingly
little appears to have been written about the academic management and administration
of what Taylor (1996) labels as fourth generation distance education delivery
[flexible learning].

Beaudoin (2002), in
his commentary essay - "Distance education leadership: An essential role
for a new century," argues for the research and examination of the specific
type of leadership needed in distance education leadership. Beaudoin (2002)
states that "a reasonable amount of attention has been given to the planning
and administration of distance education for quite some time (138)."
Beaudoin (2002) goes on, however, to state that this might be considered adequate
enough without discussing the more esoteric domain of leadership (138). Lee
(2001) agrees, stating,

Although the organizational
behavior theorists and researchers have investigated perceived organizational
support in many different organizational environments, higher education
institutions have rarely been examined. Yet, no studies have investigated
the perceptions of faculty with regard to instructional support, and whether
their perceived organizational support has a relationship to faculty motivation,
commitment, and satisfaction in relation to distance technology (p. 154).

According to Case and
Scanlan (2001), there are specific attributes of administrators in a university
in relation to distance education, "Senior administrators in universities
and colleges must invest in a strategic plan for distance education. Management
must provide leadership in developing this plan for the institution as a whole.
Unit administrators (Deans, Directors, Department Heads) can then adopt the
strategic directions that best suit their needs." According to Cyrs,

'Just go in there and
teach the way you have always taught. There isn't any difference between
traditional classroom teaching and teaching at a distance.' This often-repeated
statement by poorly informed administrators perpetuates the myth that no
additional traditional training is necessary to go from the classroom to
the studio. This is exactly what some administrators want to hear. They
reason that if there are only minor differences, their instructors don't
need additional training, and this keeps the budgets down. This reasoning
leads to telecourses that simply shift the same pedagogy currently prominent
in traditional college classrooms, the passive lecture, to teleclassrooms.
The 'talking head' predominates (p. 15).

Dede (1993) also supports
the idea of leadership in distance education being different from traditional
education leadership, "Creating and conveying technological visions powerful
enough to displace traditional educational models is one of the most challenging
aspects of leadership." Care and Scanlan (2001) add, "There is a
general lack of understanding regarding the experiences of administrators,
faculty, and staff from other departments in the development of distance education
courses."

Does knowledge of planning
and administration automatically make an effective leader? According to Dede
(1993), there is a difference between a manager and a leader stating that
"one of the most important attributes that distinguishes leaders from
managers is "vision. Leaders create and convey compelling images
of how our reach is much less than our potential grasp; they redefine people's
paradigms about what is possible. In contrast, competent managers are adept
at organizing operations so that an institution's efficiency in accomplishing
plans is optimized. This is a vital task often neglected by leaders who do
not understand management." According to Beaudoin (2002), "leadership
is not widely recognized as distance education has been based both on traditional
education leadership and business/industry leadership." Pahal (199) agrees
with Beaudoin (2002), stating that "IT leadership requires many of the
characteristics common to all leaders, but also requires special abilities
and insights into technology's impact." The lack of specific distance
education leadership might be due, as Beaduoin states, to the fact that some
do not see distance education as different from traditional education in terms
of leadership (138). Beaudoin (2002) disagrees with these "some,"
as he states on page 135,

As traditional and
distance education institutions converge, leaders who have been dealing
with discreet programs identified with their institutions where proprietary
lines between programs and students are merging, and participants shift
among multiple formal and informal learning venues. It all argues
that bold and creative leadership is required to manage as well as evaluate
these emerging new structures, driven in large measure by networking technology
(1998).

Pahal (1999) also notes
the vagueness of what a leader is, "some people see the leader as a motivator,
while others define a leader as one having extraordinary vision and decision-making
power." Wunsch (2000) states,

Directors of instructional
technology centers are especially prone to nurturing the belief that key
administrators (for our purposes this refers to presidents, vice presidents,
deans, and directors) do and should think about instructional technology
as a key to the campus support system. It is difficult to believe, let alone
accept, that our personal values and interests may not be those of the institution
and its administrators.

With the exception
of a few individuals who have a disciplinary or personal interest in technology,
top administrators generally are not concerned with instructional technology
per se (p. 61).

While various authors
have described characteristics of a distance education leader, no one concrete
definition has been arrived at that covers all aspects addressed by the various
researchers.

Beaudoin (2002) points
out some specific characteristics that a distance education leader needs (p.
132), (1) create conditions for innovative change, (2) enable individuals
and organizations to share a vision and move in its direction, and (3) contribute
to the management and operationalization of ideas. While these traits are
implicit in transformational leadership, the method of applying and utilizing
them is unique for the distance education leader.

According to Wunsch (2000),
"Autonomy can give a director a sense of personal control over daily
operations, but the long-term results of isolation from the mainstream of
campus process carries a heavy price (p. 65)." Wunsch (2000) goes on
to state, "Proactive, risk-taking leadership means that no director can
stand alone or behind the scenes. A competent media center director is on
the front line, integrated into other instructional support ventures, always
in danger of attention, assessment, and critical opinion. Community,
not autonomy, produces the high visibility that results in credibility and
recognition (p. 65)."

As Mereba (2003) explains,
"the critical issue facing many institutions of higher education today
is not the need for allocation of funds for the procurement of technological
hardware as much as it is their inability to properly align their technology
initiatives with their strategic plans and mission in order to achieve their
goals and move forward in their development (p. 43)." Leaders of distance
education need to know how to implement these changes in particular to the
education setting of this institution. The researcher recommends the CBAM
methodology, as described by Rogers (1995) and Hord et al (1987). According
to Rakes and Casey (2002), "The Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM)
has become a change model widely used by those individuals planning for staff
development accompanying any educational innovation. The composite of feelings,
preoccupation, thought, and consideration given to an issue or task is called
concern." Rakes and Casey (2002) go on to define the CBAM, as "a
research-based framework that explains the process individuals follow as they
undergo the process of change. The Stages of Concern Questionnaire is designed
to capture teachers' current concerns about adopting such an innovation which,
in this case, is instructional technology." Dede (1993) agrees, stating
"Shifting communities to alternative visions for education that are based
on more realistic, but less comfortable assumptions is a major leadership
challenge. Leadership requires packaging alternative assumptions and
paradigms as part of a larger vision that inspires new roles for educational
stakeholders." According to Pahal (1999),

The changing nature
of the workforce, one that is increasingly diverse and facing new issues
such as downsizing and declining corporate loyalty, requires a new type
of leader - one who can unite a nation lacking confidence and one who can
become flexible and mindful of the constraints of living in an increasingly
borderless environment brought about by advanced telecommunications. According
to Capowski (194), leadership for the IT era must focus on encouraging and
sustaining corporate nurturing and provide an atmosphere where innovation
is encouraged and creativity is rewarded.

The distance education
leader is a transformational leader, helping stakeholders to realize the benefits
of distance education. This does not necessarily mean monetary rewards. As
Lee (2001) discusses,

It is rare to find
studies that investigated whether the faculty perception of their organizational
support has a relationship with faculty commitment, motivation, and satisfaction
toward distance teaching. Two studies were located in which the relationship
between extrinsic reward, as a way of instructional support, and faculty
motivation was investigated. These studies reported that the faculty motivation
toward teaching at a distance seemed to rely primarily on activities associated
with the act of teaching, per se, rather than extrinsic or monetary rewards
(Peirpoint and Hartnett, 1988; Taylor and White, 1991; Wolcott, 1999). However,
this result does not necessarily mean that faculty do not appreciate the
extrinsic reward at all. In fact, Dillon (1989) and Jackson (1994) claimed
that incentives provided by higher education institutions are critical to
motivate faculty members in distance education (p. 154).

However, the distance
education leader also needs, according to Beaudoin (2002), to be a situational
leader, one who can diagnose the organization at a specific moment and determine
the readiness of the organization or its stakeholders for change (p. 140).
Pahal (1999) agrees, stating that "The IT leader must be a self-achiever
and should be motivated to become a proactive leader and role model. Changes
in technology often produce a 'chaos situation' where change management in
the use of instructional technology in teaching and learning becomes increasingly
important (Fitzgerald, 1998). The IT leader must be ready to embrace that
change." According to Lane (2001), "Human factors require as much
or more planning than technical design to enlist user acceptance and create
a sustained use of the application. The introduction of distance learning
by an influential person prior to use is important for adoption and successful
implementation." By being aware of change, and open to change, the leader
in distance education is more likely to (1) recognize a need for change at
any given moment, (2) acknowledge the probable reactions of the constituents
towards change, and (3) react appropriately to the responses to the proposed
changes. Lane points out nine conditions for success, many of which are dependent
on this transformational and situational leader:

Additionally, a leader
in distance education needs to use systemic leadership. According to Dede,
"Leadership also involves creating steppingstones that bridge from a
desired future to the current gridlock typical of many American schools. In
evolving from its present state to a distant objective, an educational institution
must progress stage by stage. Each step of evolution requires a critical mass
of resources and must create a stable, desirable situation."

In summary, the question
of what a distance education leader is, the characteristics of such, the requirements
of such, and the actions of an effective distance education leader still have
not been adequately defined by the current research. There is still a long
way to go before an adequate definition of these aspects of an effective distance
education leader will be reached. It is hoped, through this article, to bring
the insights of various researchers together into one place to help future
distance education leaders to best fulfill the still unstated requirements
of their positions.

References

Beaudoin, M. (1999). The Instructor's Changing Role in Distance Education.
The American Journal of Distance Education 4(2) p. 21-29.

Cyrs, T. E. (1997, Fall).
Competence in teaching at a distance. In T. E. Cyrs, Ed. Teaching and Learning
at a Distance: What It Takes to Effectively Design, Deliver, and Evaluate
Programs. (New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.